This is old news in that it has been reported elsewhere around the web. Nevertheless, I provide the full story and a translation from the Spanish below.

Generally, the reasons given for Brazil’s rejection of circumcision as a public health measure, apart from not fitting the profile of a country that UNAIDS and WHO are encouraging to consider the measure, are the following:

circumcision only provides one-way protection, from female to male (partial protection in more ways than one)

circumcision has the very real danger of providing a false sense of security, thereby causing a drop off in the use of better prevention technologies, aka the condom

I would add another reason. Circumcision damages the penis and has the proven potential to cause sexual dysfunction. Therefore, it should be a last resort in highly impacted populations. Did this idea have some traction at the high-level meeting that produced the WHO and UNAIDS recommendations in that only countries with an infection rate of 15% or more are to be encouraged to consider the measure? Or is it more likely a cost ($$) benefit analysis was the true basis for limiting the recommendation to such countries?

A recent bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended resorting to a generalized circumcision campaign in some countries as a way to combat HIV infection, after a study carried out in Africa indicated that the surgery helps strengthen the skin of the glans and creates a natural barrier against the HIV virus. [In fact, this is in error. The mechanism was not studied and has so far garnered only speculation as to how it works.]

For the Brazilian Health Minstry’s technical advisor for the national HIV program, Mariangela Simao, one of the problems is that, according to the studies, the surgery to remove the foreskin only avoids transmission from the female to the male and not the other way around, according to the state Brazilian Information Agency. [Again, incorrect. It did not prove prevention. Rather it purported to show a lowered risk.]

According to the WHO, circumcision as a weapon against AIDS is only applicable in countries where the epidemic has reached a level greater than 15% of the population, and in this context, Latin American countries are excluded, including Brazil, where the epidemic has reached 0.06% of inhabitants.

That proposition sends the message of “false protection,” in that men can think that if they are circumcised they can have sex, foregoing condoms without running any risk, when “it isn’t true,” she observed.

What is an intactivist?

noun
1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of children's rights, especially the right to genital integrity or the right to be free from genital cutting (circumcision).

adjective
2. of or pertaining to intactivism or intactivists: an intactivist organization for the right of male, female, and intersex children to be free from genital cutting.

3. advocating for children by vigorously opposing genital cutting (circumcision), especially the cutting of children who lack capacity to consent: Intactivist opponents of the American Academy of Pediatrics picketed their annual conference in New Orleans.